Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!rit!cci632!ccicpg!dave From: dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Various topics Summary: sorry Jay Message-ID: <59506@ccicpg.UUCP> Date: 24 Feb 90 20:52:58 GMT References: <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> Followup-To: misc.test Organization: ccicpg Lines: 122 In article , jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > I was hoping that this dead, rotting equine carcass would finally be > allowed to rest in peace; instead, we get disinformation: > > In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > >There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers > >got involved: sci.aquaria. > > Actually, there was only one aquaria group until Richard Sexton went > nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the > net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim > otherwise, when Richard has been documented to say that the improved > distribution was the reason for sci.*, is disinformation. The alt group is not the concern of this group. You want to discuss alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. And which was it Jay? Did Richard try to create sci.aquaria SIMPLY to defraud, to maim the Holy Hierarchy of usenet, or was he trying to create a useful (in his eyes) newsgroup? > >The aquaria people didn't call for the REC group, it was > >CREATED without discussion and/or vote. I seem to remember > >something about a POLL. Maybe you should ask around and > >see WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM HERE. > > Any answer other than Richard Sexton is disinformation. Richard called for a newsgroup. It was created. Richard was perfectly happy. He went off and started posting in the new group. Then the pithy screamers started: "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) REC.aquaria. And the pithy screamers continue: "USENET IS SOILED" "DEATH TO SCI.FISHIES" And now people in news.groups talking about removing an alt group. An ALT group. Marvelous. Answer me again: Who's creating the problem here? > >There was one group. You jokers made the second one. > > There was one group. Richard created the second one, and the third was > created to try to correct the results of Richard's fraud. Your answer is > more disinformation. I'll say it again: Leave the ALT group out of this. It's alt's concern. Sci was the FIRST group of concern here. And what "fraud" do you keep alluding to? No one has EVER shown any fraud in any of these discussions. Your answer is more disinformation. And libelous. But I'm glad to see that you agree that the REC group was created OUTSIDE the usenet guidelines. > >Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF > >YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. > > Actually, the idea is to take two groups, one of which is the product of > outright fraud, and make one, at which time the need for the third will > go away. Your comment is disinformation. Again with the fraud. You an expert or something? No Jay, that is not the idea. The idea you people have been campaigning for is the removal of ALL aquaria groups. You want the sci group out because Sexton was involved in it's creation. You want the rest out because, I dunno. Why? You tell me. Give me some sort of real-world answer. You out of INODES? Can't handle one more newsgroup with about 20 postings a day? Jeez, maybe we should take up a collection and get you a bigger disk. > >If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's > >talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created > >without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. > > Your call for deleting the group that fits properly in the hierarchy is > disinformation. The group was created in regard for the guidelines - > more so than Richard's group, which was created in violation of the > guidelines about a name consensus. It's Mr. Disinformation himself. Jay the BIG LIE won't work here. Rec.aquaria was created without discussion OR vote. Peter held a poll and when it went HIS way he created rec.aquaria. He and his ilk IMMEDIATELY began campaigning for the removal of the sci group. > sci.aquaria is the group that needs to go away. NEEDS. Very telling that. What NEED? Demonstrate some NEED. Show me how sci.aquaria is causing irrepairable damage to usenet. Explain to me why sci.aquaria has no right to exist. Thrill me with the NEED to remove sci.aquaria. If you would stop to READ the groups you'd see the difference between the rec group and the sci group. The rec group is most definitely a 'hobby' group. Novice fish keeping questions. The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other sci groups. How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy? It's a sci group, they talk sci. What's the problem? You don't think fishies are science, fine, that's YOUR problem, not the nets. But of course, gathering facts and making decisions based on them doesn't seem to be your forte. Dave